Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

[jillian]

he was the head of GNC? Can he get me a discount on protein bars?

that's funny... i originally had GOP, then went to change it to RNC... I must have gotten distracted by a bright shiny object.

I just thought you had your black guys confused and it was some reference to Godfather's Pizza.

ummm...no. heh..

 

[Uncensored2008]

You seem perfectly willing to make up your own version of what may or may not have happened between Cain and this woman...thats your right...I'll wait until actual facts emerge.

Jillian's not much for facts, she's pretty well stuck on hack.

That being said...I just want to clarify what I think is the underlying answer to my question in your speculation...

You believe that a person should be able to a) accuse someone of harrassment b) accept a large cash payout with the stipulation that the payment will resolve the issue and then c) go back on that agreement and make the entire incident known if it seems advantageous to them or they decide that they really do want to make the issue known afterall...

Am I reading you right?

You've pretty well got her pegged!

 

[Mustang]

why do you hate black Republican men?

I don't. I like Michael Steele.

Thinking Cain is an idiot doesn't mean I hate black republican men, willow.

But nice try, I guess. It gave me a giggle, anyway.

before you judge what happened, i'd suggest that it's fair to listen to her side of the story... particularly since cain hasn't done a very good job of handling the issue.

or should no one ever question rightwingnuts?

I'm game.. Just as soon as she pays him back all the money.

Huh? Nondisclosure agreements are usually two-way streets. Cain has essentially been denigrating the women who received settlements. He could very well be opening himself up for additional lawsuits from those women.

 

[Gem]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

 

[Ravi]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

You're assuming that the women are the ones that went to the press with the story....in all likelihood it was someone that was a witness to events that has an interest in getting Cain out of the race.

So please, don't bad mouth these women until you have the facts.

 

[Si modo]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

You're assuming that the women are the ones that went to the press with the story....in all likelihood it was someone that was a witness to events that has an interest in getting Cain out of the race.

So please, don't bad mouth these women until you have the facts.

I see no reason to bad-mouth them or Cain.

And, if one of the women speaks, how will you decide what the facts are?

Or even both of them?

How are we going to know the facts?

We can have a side we would like to believe, but I'm not sure it's going to be much more than a he said/she said situation.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Huh? Nondisclosure agreements are usually two-way streets.

Almost never.

Most NDA's a part of termination agreements, like this one was. You get severance in return for keeping your mouth shut and not slandering your ex-employer.

Cain has essentially been denigrating the women who received settlements.

In other words, you're a partisan hack who trashes enemies of the party, regardless of a complete lack or evidence.

He could very well be opening himself up for additional lawsuits from those women.

No doubt you're just concerned for his well being, hack.

 

[Gem]

Ravi Wrote:

You're assuming that the women are the ones that went to the press with the story....in all likelihood it was someone that was a witness to events that has an interest in getting Cain out of the race.

So please, don't bad mouth these women until you have the facts.

I haven't bad-mouthed these women. I have stated that I have concerns at the thought of anyone accepted a settlement and then anonymously coming forward to discuss the details of what led to the settlement in the first place. If the women involved have done this...I question it.

I have an equal problem, frankly, with any "anonymous" source coming out to discuss an issue that has been "settled," because it puts all involved in the difficult position of having to "defend" themselves when they should not be speaking about it all. Again, this is why my main issue with this story at this time is that the media is not being excoriated for bringing this story to light when it was so obviously poorly sourced and poorly supported. It is Politico et. al, who is responsible for potentially critically damaging a politician's campaign on "anonymous" and thin claims...and potentially dragging private citizens' private and settled issues into the light without their permission.

 

[Rocko]

jillian wrote:

how about the more likely scenario...

he sexually harassed her and begged her to take the money and shut up and not tell anyone.

but you'll never know unless you let her talk.

disgusting.

You seem perfectly willing to make up your own version of what may or may not have happened between Cain and this woman...thats your right...I'll wait until actual facts emerge.

That being said...I just want to clarify what I think is the underlying answer to my question in your speculation...

You believe that a person should be able to a) accuse someone of harrassment b) accept a large cash payout with the stipulation that the payment will resolve the issue and then c) go back on that agreement and make the entire incident known if it seems advantageous to them or they decide that they really do want to make the issue known afterall...

Am I reading you right?

I'm actually going to agree with, the person who has a guilty conscious, on one thing, that's that there should be full transparency on this issue, because he's running for the GNC nomination. Anyone running to represent the GNC as the nominee for president needs to be fully vetted, if he's wasn't running than contract law is contract law, and it still is anyway, but Cain and the parties that be, must make way for this to be out in the open. She's going to spill the beans anyway, there's too much money for her to make in doing so.

 

[Mustang]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

You're assuming that the women are the ones that went to the press with the story....in all likelihood it was someone that was a witness to events that has an interest in getting Cain out of the race.

So please, don't bad mouth these women until you have the facts.

I just heard a talk radio host say that it didn't matter how these allegations came to light. Really? Somehow I think it would matter to them if the allegations originated from a Democrat or liberal-leaning group. I think the only reason he said it doesn't matter is because it looks very much like a GOP attempt to discredit Cain, and that wouldn't bode well for party solidarity going forward.

The simple fact of the matter is the GOP is in disarray, if not downright chaos. Their most viable candidate (Romney) in terms of money raised and past experience isn't liked or trusted by the GOP base. And because of that fact, the GOP base has been lurching from one fatally-flawed alternate candidate to the next. Come on. Trump? Trump doesn't know the issues and has never held ANY elective office. Bachmann? She's been saying looney stuff for years. Her medically invalid comment about an HPV cancer vaccine mental retardation connection was just the latest in a long line. Then Perry rockets to the top only to perform extremely poorly in debates before giving a disturbing speech in NH where he looks like he's hopped up on something. And Cain? How many times has Cain just proved that he didn't know what he was talking about? Then he repeatedly lies about his knowledge about the sexual harrassment settlement. Yet, conservatives are undeterred? What else can it be other than a dissatisfaction with Romney.

And let's not forget that conservatives constantly remarked that Obama didn't have adequate experience to be president. Well, if a law school graduate who taught constitutional law, served in the Ill State senate and the US Senate isn't qualified, how can Cain be qualified if he's never held any political office in his life. The last president who never held elective office prior to becoming president was Eisenhower, and I think it's safe to say that being the Supreme Allied Commander during WWII while working with all allied govt leaders was a huge plus with the electorate.

According to my research, EVERY previous president but one either was a general in the military or held elective office at the state or national level. The one exception? It was Herbert Hoover who was previously Commerce Secretary.

Cain isn't prepared to be president, and it's glaringly obvious to everyone except the pied piper GOP base.

 

[Si modo]

The GOP is in disarray, huh?

Then why are so many lefties so concerned about what happens with it?

"disarray"

 

[Trajan]

Weren't you one of the RWers who's IMMEDIATE and FIRST response to the story was "Where is his accuser(s)?"

Now look atcha.

The liar is toast I say...TOAST!!

No, no I wasn't. It's a non-story about some chick who got paid a few $$ to shut the **** up and go away... it's called a nuisance payout.

Bye.

Like what Paula Jones got.

yes, that is true. yet, she was able to tell her story, why exactly?

 

[jillian]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

it wasn't the "media" who brought the story to light. someone from the gop ranks leaked it. the only reason the source is "anonymous" is because she's not allowed to come forward until cain allows her to. He had 10 days before they went to press on the story. He had more than enough time to respond.

No one "rushed" anything. If Cain wanted the "facts" out, he could have not lied to begin with. And before you say it's unsubstantiated and he didn't lie, he admitted that there was an allegation and money was paid. Beyond that, it's up to him to lift the confidentiality agreement (since he already breached it).

 

[Si modo]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

it wasn't the "media" who brought the story to light. someone from the gop ranks leaked it. the only reason the source is "anonymous" is because she's not allowed to come forward until cain allows her to. He had 10 days before they went to press on the story. He had more than enough time to respond.

No one "rushed" anything. If Cain wanted the "facts" out, he could have not lied to begin with.

Someone in the GOP leaked it?

Where did you learn that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

it wasn't the "media" who brought the story to light. someone from the gop ranks leaked it.

Really? Based on what evidence?

the only reason the source is "anonymous" is because she's not allowed to come forward until cain allows her to.

Cain has no control over it. If you knew a lawyer, you could ask them to explain the concepts of agency and binding agreements. Cain did not create the NDA upon termination of the individual.

He had 10 days before they went to press on the story. He had more than enough time to respond.

It's generally best not to respond to smear campaigns. Cain should have never responded in any way.

No one "rushed" anything. If Cain wanted the "facts" out, he could have not lied to begin with. And before you say it's unsubstantiated and he didn't lie, he admitted that there was an allegation and money was paid. Beyond that, it's up to him to lift the confidentiality agreement (since he already breached it).

It's doubtful that there are any facts. Another smear job in the Clintonian "Politics of Personal Destruction" that you demagogues have perfected.

Standard Disclaimer: When I spread a little rep around, I'll return the turds you left when you yet again shit on my carpet, you mindless skank.

 

[Valerie]

UPDATE: 6:21 p.m. Herman Cain accused the campaign of Gov. Rick Perry of being behind the allegations that he sexually harassed women, charges that have consumed Mr. Cain’s presidential bid in recent days, particularly as more accounts emerge raising questions about his behavior.

Mr. Cain, in an article published by Forbes on Wednesday afternoon, accused Curt Anderson — a former aide on Mr. Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign in Georgia and now an adviser to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — of being the instigator of the scandal. Mr. Cain recalled telling Mr. Anderson about the harassment charges in 2003.

Cain Faults Perry as More Allegations Emerge - NYTimes.com

 

[JoeB131]

UPDATE: 6:21 p.m. Herman Cain accused the campaign of Gov. Rick Perry of being behind the allegations that he sexually harassed women, charges that have consumed Mr. Cain’s presidential bid in recent days, particularly as more accounts emerge raising questions about his behavior.

Mr. Cain, in an article published by Forbes on Wednesday afternoon, accused Curt Anderson — a former aide on Mr. Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign in Georgia and now an adviser to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — of being the instigator of the scandal. Mr. Cain recalled telling Mr. Anderson about the harassment charges in 2003.

Cain Faults Perry as More Allegations Emerge - NYTimes.com

So did Perry use his psychic powers to make Cain lie about whether there was a settlement or not or whether he was aware that there were complaints.

Cain's in trouble because he had 10 days warning this story was coming, and he STILL can't seem to get his story straight.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

 

[Trajan]

UPDATE: 6:21 p.m. Herman Cain accused the campaign of Gov. Rick Perry of being behind the allegations that he sexually harassed women, charges that have consumed Mr. Cain’s presidential bid in recent days, particularly as more accounts emerge raising questions about his behavior.

Mr. Cain, in an article published by Forbes on Wednesday afternoon, accused Curt Anderson — a former aide on Mr. Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign in Georgia and now an adviser to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — of being the instigator of the scandal. Mr. Cain recalled telling Mr. Anderson about the harassment charges in 2003.

Cain Faults Perry as More Allegations Emerge - NYTimes.com

So did Perry use his psychic powers to make Cain lie about whether there was a settlement or not or whether he was aware that there were complaints.

Cain's in trouble because he had 10 days warning this story was coming, and he STILL can't seem to get his story straight.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

I agree, they did not handle this well, at all. Thats why in addition to what may appear a great candidate, you need a first class organization behind you too.

 

[Intense]

Jillian Wrote:

no. you're not reading me right. willow said that she held him up for money and basically extorted funds from him. i said she should be able to tell her side of the story, since he's talking about it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote

i have no predisposition on what happened. however, that said, the way cain is handling this does not leave me believing this is something out of nothing.

I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

it wasn't the "media" who brought the story to light. someone from the gop ranks leaked it. the only reason the source is "anonymous" is because she's not allowed to come forward until cain allows her to. He had 10 days before they went to press on the story. He had more than enough time to respond.

No one "rushed" anything. If Cain wanted the "facts" out, he could have not lied to begin with. And before you say it's unsubstantiated and he didn't lie, he admitted that there was an allegation and money was paid. Beyond that, it's up to him to lift the confidentiality agreement (since he already breached it).

Nobody has yet to come up with the Complaint or the Settlement. Until that is done, this is all Speculative Bullshit. Shame on so called responsible people letting it get this far, in the way it did.

 

[jillian]

Jillian Wrote:


Thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure that I can agree with you that someone should accept a settlement and then be able to anonymously talk about it later - even if Cain is guilty and the woman was harassed. I feel that once she signed a settlement stating she was accepting money for her silence...that ends it - if she doesn't feel she can live with that then she shouldn't have accepted the payoff.

As far as "Cain talking about it so she should be able to..." I feel thats kind of weak too..considering Cain WOULDN'T be talking about it...if "anonymous" accusers hadn't "anonymously" brought up the issue.

Should Cain not be allowed to defend himself if the people who accepted the settlements get around their contract by "anonymously" talking about it? Seems a bit like having their cake and eating it too. They get the money AND they get to smear the guy they don't like.

Jillian Wrote


I agree with you that Cain has handled this poorly, and it has likely helped make the issue bigger. And if it comes out that he has indeed done something truly harassing...then I fully support him stepping out of the race. But at this point...I think that the media that brought this story to light at this point...with nothing but anonymous sources and very thinly described indications of what actually happened...should be excoriated. To me, this feels far more like bad reporting rushed out to try to derail Cain's campaign then a real story about a potential problem with a potential candidate. Cain is not going to be elected president tomorrow...there was no need to "rush" this story out until more facts were clear.

it wasn't the "media" who brought the story to light. someone from the gop ranks leaked it. the only reason the source is "anonymous" is because she's not allowed to come forward until cain allows her to. He had 10 days before they went to press on the story. He had more than enough time to respond.

No one "rushed" anything. If Cain wanted the "facts" out, he could have not lied to begin with. And before you say it's unsubstantiated and he didn't lie, he admitted that there was an allegation and money was paid. Beyond that, it's up to him to lift the confidentiality agreement (since he already breached it).

Nobody has yet to come up with the Complaint or the Settlement. Until that is done, this is all Speculative Bullshit. Shame on so called responsible people letting it get this far, in the way it did.

he admitted it.

and they can't "come up with a complaint or a settlement" until cain waives the nondisclosures agreement.